55. People of The Philippines vs Hon.

Bonifacio Maceda

GR No. 89591-96 January 24, 2000

FACTS:

Private respondent Atty. Avelino Javellana was ordered by public

respondent Judge Bonifacio Maceda to be arrested and detained in the
custody of then Clerk of Court Branch 12, San Jose, Antique, Atty. Deogracias
del Rosario at his residence during the pendency of the Criminal Cases Nos.
3350-3355.Sufficient reason was shown by Javellana why he should not be
detained at Antique provincial jail.However private respondent went about his
normal activities as if he was a free man, including engaging in the practice of
law.

ISSUE:

Wether or not Atty Javellana should continue to practice law despite being
arrested and placed under the custody of then Clerk of Court Atty Del
Rosario?

HELD:

No, respondent Javellana should not continue to practice law. As a

detention prisoner Javellana is not allowed to practice his profession as a
necessary consequence of his status as a detention prisoner. “ The prohibition
to practice law referred not only to Criminal case No. 4262 but to all other
cases as well, except in cases where private respondent would appear in court
to defend himself.”
 When a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed
under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of libety in jail so
that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be
tained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is
authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. All prisoners
wether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice
their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office,
elective or appointive, while in detention. This is necessary consequence of
arrest and detention.
56. JULIO ZETA VS. FELICISIMO MALINAO

A.M. No. P-220 December 20,1978

FACTS:

An administrative complaint was filed against Respondent Felicisimo

Malinao, a court interpreter of Court of First Instance of Catbalogan, Samar .
Allegedly he committed the following charges, 1.) Illegally appearing in court, as
he was not member of the bar, in representation of a party and was not
authorized to practice law and for a fee. 2.) Misconduct in office for instigating
people to grab land rob or coerce. 3.) Crime of falsification in filing his time
record as habitually present in office while in fact he was not present. 4.)
Violation of Executive order and Civil Service Law in engaging in private
practice of profession without permission from the Department Head.

ISSUE:

Wether or not respondent Malinao should be dismissed from service as he

was engaged in unauthorized practice of law.

HELD:

Yes, he should be dismissed. Respondent Malinao appeared as counsel in

several cases as he was not member of the bar. The defense that” his
participation for defendants cause was gratuitous as they could not engage the
services of counsel by reason of poverty and the absence of one in the locality
cannot carry the day for him, considering that in appearing as counsel in
court, he did so without permission from his superiors and he falsified his time
record.
57. CONRADO QUE VS ATTY ANASTACIO REVILLA JR

A.C No. 7054 December 4, 2009

FACTS:

In a complaint for disbarment, Conrado Que accussed Atty Anastacio

Revilla Jr before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Committee on Bar
Discipline of committing violations of several provisions of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. The respondent
allegedly committed 1.) abuse of court remedies and processes by filling a
petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals to assail and overturn the
final judgments of the Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court in the
Unlawful Detainer Case rendered against the respondents clients.
2.)Respondent committed Forum shopping by filing the subject cases in order
to impede,obstruct and frustrate the efficient administration of justice.
3.)Respondents lack of candor and respect towards his adversary and the
courts by resorting to falsehood and deception and misguide, obstruct and
impede the due administration of justice.4.) Respondents wilful and revolting
falsehood that unjustly maligned and defamed the good name and reputation
of late atty. Alfredo Catolico, the previous counsel of the respondent clients. 5.)
The respondents deliberate, fraudulent and unauthorized appearances in
court in the petition for annulment of judgments for 15 litigants, three of whom
are already deceased. 6.) The respondents wilful and fraudulent appearance in
the second petition for annulment of title as counsel for the Republic of the
Philippines without being authorized to do so.

ISSUE:

Wether or not the respondent can be held liable for the imputed unethical
infractions and professional misconduct and what penalty should carry.
RULING:

The respondent should be held liable and disbarred from practice of

law.The complaint is not the only one so far filed involving the respondent and
there is another complaint invoking similar grounds has previously been filed
and was previously suspended for a period of six months.